Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-16/tgmwc-16-154.06

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-16/tgmwc-16-154.06
Last-Modified: 2000/06/04
Q. You told the Tribunal this morning that Seyss-Inquart
told you that he wanted to retain some independence for
Austria - some semblance of independence, anyway. Now, you
did not believe that, did you, when he told you?
A. I cannot say either yes or no to that. I turned him down,
and therefore I did not bother my head any more about
Seyss-Inquart's political ideas because I did not intend to
enter the government. The demand had to be regarded as being
meant seriously.
Q. Well, you used some particular language when you turned
him down, did you not? What did you say about wanting to be
truthful and decent?
A. I stated at that time that I belonged to Federal
Chancellor Schuschnigg, that the laws of decency and loyalty
still applied for me, and that therefore I would resign with
him.
Q. Then, did you not use the language, "I still believe in
the rules of truth and decency"?
A. No, the laws regarding loyalty and decency were still
applicable to me. That is what I said. I had been with
Federal Chancellor Schuschnigg all the time, and I would
also resign with him. In this connection you would have to
know my relationship to the Chancellor; anyone who knows
that knows what it means and that I could not have acted any
differently.
Q. Now, I am not suggesting that. I am merely trying to show
that you yours if used language in refusing Seyss-Inquart
that indicated that you did not think he was truthful or
faithful or decent. Is that not so?
A. I did not mean that. There was indeed a difference, which
arose from the fact that I was on terms of friendship with
the Chancellor.
[Page 215]
Q. Well, you know we have your testimony in Vienna where you
testified under oath before the Court, and you remember
telling the judge there that Seyss-Inquart participated in
the violent removal of Schuschnigg.
A. Yes, I stated that I could not belong to Seyss-Inquart's
government since it was, after all, partly responsible for
the removal of Schuschnigg's government. Since I was a
friend of Schuschnigg, I could not participate in such a
government.
Q. Well, the point of it all is that, knowing Seyss-Inquart
had been in the closest association with the Nazis, and
having had your experience at Berchtesgaden, are you serious
when you tell the Tribunal that you really thought - you
really believed Seyss-Inquart when he said he wanted to
maintain some independence for Austria?
A. I doubted that, too, at the time, just as I still doubt
it today. What went on in his mind, I cannot say.
Q. I am not asking you that. I am asking you what went on in
your mind.
Now, you had a conversation with the defendant von Papen
about Seyss-Inquart not many years ago, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, tell the Tribunal when and where that conversation
took place.
A. I met von Papen in Turkey - it must have been in late
autumn 1940. Our conversation turned on the events of 11th
March, 1938. At the time von Papen expressed himself in a
severely critical way about the procedure at that time,
about Seyss-Inquart, because he had done nothing for the
independence of Austria and also because the procedure had
not served German interests either. He wanted to express his
criticism, and I had the impression that he was indeed
against a violent solution, that is, against a solution by
violence such as had occurred.
Q. Well, I want you particularly to tell the Tribunal just
what it was that von Papen said about Seyss-Inquart - and
this was 1943, was it not, not 1940? It was when you were in
Turkey and so was von Papen? Or was he not?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Now, maybe I can help you a little if you have forgotten.
Did not von Papen say that he would not shake hands with
Seyss-Inquart?
A. He did say that. He said that he would ... that he would
have ... it must have been some time after the Anschluss -
refused to shake hands with him, and indeed he referred to
his behaviour in 1938.
Q. And he said his behaviour was utterly impossible?
Is not that the language that von Papen used about
Seyss-Inquart or some of the language?
A. He did express himself in that way.
Q. What were the other things that he said? You said in
Vienna that von Papen used the harshest language imaginable
in describing Seyss-Inquart and his conduct in March 1938. I
think that is of some interest to the Tribunal, and I wish
you would tell us exactly what it was. It is only three
years ago you know that you and von Papen had this
conversation, and you have not told us very much about it.
A. He spoke in a very vehement way - passed a judgement by
which he meant that Seyss-Inquart had offered no protection
to the Austrians and that he had done nothing to keep the
fate of Austria in the balance, that is, to safeguard
Austria's individuality and Austria's interests.
That was Papen's basic thought. His second thought was that
the German: interests had not been served by this either, by
which he meant, more or less, that a quite justified
interest of the German Reich had been made to look wrong in
the eyes of the world because of the way in which it had
been handled, and that the foreign political interests of
the Reich had been damaged thereby. That was the principal
thought in his conversation, and I think he made similar
remarks during conversations with other people.
Q. All right. I am afraid I have passed on from
Berchtesgaden and have omitted something that is probably of
some importance.
[Page 216]
Do you remember - I think not long before you broke up your
session there - Hitler turning to von Papen and saying, "von
Papen, you made it possible for me to be Chancellor, and I
shall never forget it."
Did you hear Hitler say that to von Papen that day at
Berchtesgaden?
A. Yes, some such remark was made.
Q. What did von Papen say?
A. That I can no longer tell you.
Q. He said, "Yes, my Fuehrer," or something like that, did
he not?
A. Yes, I assume so, because upon being addressed like that
he had to give an answer.
Q. He certainly did not deny it, did he?
A. I do not assume he did, but I cannot remember the answer.
I can only remember the question.
Q. The night in Vienna when the SS and the SA people were
climbing through the windows and crowding doors of the
Chancellery, did Seyss-Inquart do anything to have them
excluded?
A. Not to my knowledge. I do not know, I was on the other
side.
Q. Yes: It was a very tense situation, as we know. As a
matter of fact, you were fearful that some harm would be,
done to Schuschnigg, were you not?
A. It was a very tense situation.
Q. How did you and Schuschnigg go home that night from the
Chancellery?
A. We left in three cars - the Federal Chancellor in one,
the President in the other, and I was in the third. The
departure was escorted and organized and accompanied by SS
men.
Q. Schuschnigg was not taken home in Seyss-Inquart's private
car by Seyss-Inquart; he was taken home by the SS; is that
so?
A. No, they left in a car together. I myself heard
Seyss-Inquart say, "then I will take him home." Whether it
was the Federal Chancellor's car or Seyss-Inquart 's car, I
do not know, but any rate they travelled in the same car.
Q. Escorted by the SS?
A. No, that was not the case. The SS, as far as ... I do not
know whether there were SS in the Chancellor's car. The SS
only escorted us during the actual departure, that is, out
of the house. There was nobody else in my car, or the
President's car after that.
Q. That is not what you told the Court in Vienna. There you
said, "Dr. Schuschnigg and I were driven home, escorted by
the SS."
A. No, I said the SS escorted or conducted us during the
departure from the Ballhaus Platz. There were about forty SS
men present who conducted the departure from there. Whether
some one remained in the car after that, I do not know.
Q. All right. You probably can help us clear up one other
question. When Seyss-Inquart made his radio speech, he was
not actually a member of the Government, or was he?
A. There has been a lot of debate about that question. The
Federal Chancellor had resigned in the afternoon session. At
first, the President had not accepted the resignation, so,
therefore, he was still Chancellor and Seyss-Inquart was
still Minister. Whether the resignation was accepted later
on I cannot say. Some are of the opinion that the President
may, for all practical purposes, have entrusted the Federal
Chancellor with the continuation of business, and
Seyss-Inquart along with him. Others think that that would
not have happened. Only the head of the State himself can
answer that question.
Q. As a former member of that government, I want you to look
at one document, and perhaps you can tell us whether or not
you have seen it before.
MR. DODD: It is 4015 PS. It becomes Exhibit USA 891.
[Page 217]
BY MR. DODD:
Q. That states that President Miklas had relieved not only
Schuschnigg as the Federal Chancellor, but all other members
of the federal government, as well as all Secretaries of
State, of their respective offices, and that is 11th March.
A. Yes.
Q. That establishes, does it not, that Seyss-Inquart was not
in office when he made this radio speech? That is our
understanding of it. Is that so?
A. Well, I believe that I have had a lot of experience in
this question because I worked with the Federal President
for a long time. Releases of this kind go -
Q. Just tell us exactly - is that true or not? Is our
understanding correct?
A. It does not necessarily have to be interpreted in that
way. Releases of this kind go out to the offices days later,
gathering mould along the way, pass into the records and
disappear into history. Therefore, it cannot be said when
that was actually done. I assume that this release was not
issued until long after the 11th of March.
Q. Did Seyss-Inquart use this term "Trojan Horse quite often
in the days preceding the events of 12th March? Was that a
common expression of his?
A. He has stated a few times that he was not a "Trojan Horse
leader", by which he wanted to express his loyalty, and
wanted to explain that it was not his job to open the back
doors to National Socialism.
Q. Did you ever think he protested too much?
A. Against what?
Q. About not being a Trojan Horse.
A. I did not hear that expression more than two or three
times, and it was used by Zernatto.
MR. DODD: That is all.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q. I only have one brief question in connection with these
last events, witness, did not Seyss-Inquart also post men
from the guard battalion outside the Minister's room?
A. Guards were present.
Q. At what time did Schuschnigg's actual resignation occur?
A. Well, it is difficult to say when that happened; at any
rate when the new government was formed. I assume that it
must have taken place roughly between nine and ten o'clock,
since the President had conducted serious negotiations at
this time about the choice of a new Chancellor, and I think
the former Chancellor, Dr. Ender, was up for consideration.
DR. STEINBAUER: I have no further questions for this
witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may retire.
DR. STEINBAUER: With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall
now call Chief of Police Dr. Skubl as witness.
MICHAEL SKUBL, a witness, took the stand and testified as
follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT
Q. Will you state your full name, please?
A. Michael Skubl.
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will
speak the absolute truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
[Page 218]
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q. Witness, what offices did you hold in the Austrian
Republic?
A. At the end I was Chief of the Police in Vienna, and State
Secretary for Matters of Public Security. Apart from that, I
was the Inspector General of the Austrian executive
authorities.
Q. Were you called to these offices at the suggestion of Dr.
Dollfuss, in accordance with instructions he gave before he
died?
A. Dr. Dollfuss had appointed me Inspector General of the
Police the day before he was murdered on the 24th July. I
had enjoyed his full confidence.
Q. Can one, therefore, describe you as having had the
confidence of his successor and friend, Dr. Schuschnigg?
A. Yes.
Q. When Seyss-Inquart became Minister, were you attached to
him in your capacity as State Secretary and Inspector
General at the same time?
A. Yes. When Seyss-Inquart was appointed Minister of the
Interior and of Security, I was attached to him as State
Secretary. Consequently, I yeas directly subordinate to him,
whereas until that time I had been subordinated directly to
the Federal Chancellor as Chief of Security.
Q. Were the police and the constabulary in your hands or in
the hands of Seyss-Inquart, practically speaking?
A. Practically speaking, they had been in my hands.
Q. Did you have the particular task of combating illegal
movements?
A. As Chief of Police and State Secretary for Matters of
Public Security, one of my main tasks was, of course, to
combat illegal movements, and particularly National
Socialist aggression.
Q. Did you observe any connection between Seyss-Inquart and
the July 1934 putsch? I mean, when Dollfuss was murdered.
A. No.

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.